Brown v. Brown

WASTE, P. J.

brought this action against her husband alleging in her complaint that certain real property in the city of Los Angeles, purchased by her with her separate funds, was, without her consent and through the unauthorized act of the defendant, deeded to plaintiff and defendant, as joint tenants; that after the execution of the deed defendant assured plaintiff that his apparent interest in said property was merely held by him in trust and for

[85]

her benefit; that, relying upon these assurances, plaintiff paid six thousand five hundred dollars from her separate funds, in discharging a mortgage and a deed of trust on said property and in securing the release and satisfaction of the debts secured thereby; that thereafter defendant repudiated the trust and denied any interest of plaintiff in the property, and has not paid any part of the purchase price or of the amount expended in securing the release and discharge of the encumbrances thereon. Plaintiff further alleges that through fear and intimidation, and without any consideration on her part, the defendant, some two years after the purchase, compelled her to sign a contract, reciting that the parties were owners, as joint tenants, of the real property in question, and agreeing that it be sold for the sum of seven thousand dollars, the proceeds of the sale to be equally divided between them.

On these facts plaintiff prayed for a decree that the interest of the defendant in the property be declared to be held in trust for her and that he deed the same to her, and if such recovery could not be had, that the court impose a lien upon defendant’s interest in the property in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of seven thousand dollars, the aggregate amount of the purchase price and the encumbrances discharged by her. She also prayed that the agreement entered into between her husband and herself be canceled and set aside.

The lower court found that the real property in question was purchased by the plaintiff and the title thereto taken in the joint names of plaintiff and defendant, with full rights of survivorship between them, with the plaintiff’s consent, and in performance, upon her part, of a prenuptial agreement between the parties, the consideration for which was the marriage of the parties and the defendant’s release of his interest in certain property of the plaintiff in Illinois. There were other findings. to the effect that the subsequent agreement whereby the parties acknowledged their respective interests in the property in Los Angeles to be that of joint tenants was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily, and of her own free will, and was not induced by the improper act or through undue influence of the defendant. From the judgment entered in favor of the defendant plaintiff appeals, claiming that the findings are inconsistent and con